Struggling with converting to Catholicism

[guanophore]

There are still rules
CONDUCT RULES
4. Do not incite animosity towards anyone, especially the clergy.
5. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board. Catholics must be respectful of the legitimate religious preferences and practices of their fellow Catholics.
CONTENT RULES
3.Inappropriate, offensive, blasphemous posts, user names, profile entries, pictures, linked content, etc. are not permitted.

It would seem that these would cover bearing false witness, calumny, and detraction.

Actually, the subtle truth of his views came out in the way he spelled “sink” instead of the correct “sync.”

I was thinking more of a sink hole! Or maybe quicksand?

 

[po18guy]

If I had to guess, I’d say…

This user is suspended until Jun 15, 2018 5:00 am.
Reason: Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

And, Catholics are constantly accused of arrogance or triumphalism - by those who seek, singlehandedly, to set 1.25 billion Catholics straight on this whole faith thing.

 

[Dlee]

How could Christ be born of a woman with original sin?

 

[MichaelP3]

Well the question can go further? How can Christ be born of woman born of a woman with original sin. Or even born of a woman born of a woman born of a woman with original sin?

The questions can be endless, that is very evident of threads like this.

 

[MichaelP3]

And, Catholics are constantly accused of arrogance or triumphalism - by those who seek, singlehandedly, to set 1.25 billion Catholics straight on this whole faith thing.

Definitely not the whole lot.

My very Polish Catholic family in law would be considered Orthodox even by CAF standards. And I love those people so much.

A big bunch on this forum are certainly arrogant and triumphal in their postings. It doesn’t mean it is all the billion plus people (Luckaly I have actual Catholics in real life to compare with). But one is certainly biased if you do not see that!

 

[joeybaggz]

To your third point, 1500 years of Catholic teaching is fine, as long as each piece of doctrine has an eye-witness to settle it. Those eye-witnesses are the foundation of the Church. If there is teaching without the validation from the Apostolic foundation, that teaching has no biblical merit. The progressive “revelation” that goes on today (papacy) is nothing more than false prophecy speaking in the wind to declare what God’s so called on-going message is today. It is laughable if it weren’t so sad.

Okay genius, explain this to me. It is something I believe you know but since it doesn’t support your OSAS sola scriptura mania, I’m sure you don’t want to hear it.
Can you name any of the Apostles who were intimately familiar with the Blessed Mother? Think hard now because it puts your whole Mary bashing glee in a deep dark hole. Think hard now, Mr. Know it all about Scripture. Don’t remember, it was John. Stood right there next to Mary when they crucified her Son. In fact, Her Son gave Mary into his care. Didn’t need to do that if Jesus had actual brothers and sisters as you OSAS lovers believe. But that’s another story.
John took Mary into his home and cared for her until her death. Talk about your eye-witness. (Then again, since it doesn’t fit your infallible OSAS viewpoint, I guess it doesn’t count for you.) Upon which she was assumed into heaven, body and soul. Of course that wasn’t in Scripture so us 1 billion Catholics are wrong and you are right. That’s right, puff your chest our a little more now.

Why did John not record all these things in his Gospel? Maybe, if you knew a little something about early Church history, you might come up with an answer. But I doubt it. At the time of the early Church fathers, there was a little something happening called Gnosticism. So many heresies, they couldn’t count them all. The early church fathers were playing a doctrinal game called, Whack a mole - heresy version. Why are all these things that John knew about Mary not in Scripture. Why, BECAUSE SCRIPTURE IS ABOUT THE GOOD NEWS OF JESUS, Not about his family history. It was orally handed down and at the proper time when it wouldn’t contribute to the heresy parade, incorporated into Church teaching.

Oh, and your contention about the futility of oral tradition. The Old Testament is basically oral tradition. No one wrote anything down until about 1200 B.C. so everything was handed down orally. You wouldn’t even have your precious Bible if it wasn’t for oral tradition. I won’t even bother with citing Paul’s words about keeping fast to the teachings we have given you, either by the written word or by oral teaching.
Oops, I just did.

If you really want to bash the Catholic Church, find another forum, please. I know of a good one where they spend almost all their time, bashing the Catholic Church. I think you would be happier there.

 

[po18guy]

Not sure of what you’re saying. Can you clarify?

 

[MichaelP3]

Hi there

I am not really sure what part wasn’t clear?

I was referring to the “Catholics being accused of arrogance and triumphalism”. Now at least on CAF this is clear (I still guess it depends on which section of the “truth police” we are relying on) but Catholics do have a very broader way of "expressing themselves " than non-Catholics are allowed to. That may just be because it is a Catholic forum which I understand. Point is, they are still doing it and luckaly I have learned to let it go when I read certain very “repetative” phrases.

Which brings me to why I brought up my very Catholic family in law. I can luckaly compare in real life and not paint all Catholics with the brush used on CAF. So for that reason I am not anti-Catholic (honestly if I didn’t have that in real life I have no idea how I would have felt considering the “concerning Catholic posts” I have seen here before. If that was my only reference, it would be going downhill very quickly ).

So no. The whole billion + people who are supposedly all agreeing on the exact same thing regarding faith is not the issue ( as I stated I luckaly can compare) but a whole bunch on this site is "arrogant and triumphal " in there postings and I am totally speechless that this is not seen.
(not you but those posts get ignored by Catholics all the time on here, I know them by heart).

That’s my rant. Basically non-Catholics are very limited in freedom here and Catholics use this to their advantage (again mostly on CAF before someone use that on me).

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

Getting to the threads initial question that would be one of the 100 things prohibiting me from becoming Catholic. The "arrogance and triumphalism " approach of many posters on CAF.

 

[AugustTherese]

Getting to the threads initial question that would be one of the 100 things prohibiting me from becoming Catholic. The "arrogance and triumphalism " approach of many posters on CAF.

Or, it is people misunderstanding Truth for “arrogance and triumphalism”. Humility allows oneself to be rebuked and corrected; pride does not.

 

[MichaelP3]

Yea I referred to the “truth police” as well when I anticipated this exact response.

I may not have posted that many times on CAF but I do read a lot on here. Go and reread my post. I expected that reply and feel I addressed it already.

Actually at least attempt to read both posts (the one you quoted referred to another as well). Your concern is fully addressed there. I do expect you to ask me to calrify anyway and I will do that. At least try and see what I actually said. It is all there.

Regards

 

[lilypadrees]

Getting to the threads initial question that would be one of the 100 things prohibiting me from becoming Catholic. The "arrogance and triumphalism " approach of many posters on CAF.

The behavior of some is not an excuse for keeping you from becoming Catholic. For we could turn around and use the same excuse for not joining Protestant/evangelical denominations/churches.

What are the things that would be likely to make you consider becoming Catholic?

 

[MichaelP3]

The behavior of some is not an excuse for keeping you from becoming Catholic. For we could turn around and use the same excuse for not joining Protestant/evangelical denominations/churches.

Very true and I tried to make it sound like a reason, probably not even in the first half of that 100 .

Difference again is that I was referring to what I see on CAF. We have about 3% Catholics in my country and the ones I know (2 in total) from here won’t be considered very Catholic by CAF standards. Which brings me to my family in law which would be considered very Catholic and are such an opposite to what I see here So I have those people and the ones on CAF. And my above post I still fully stand by (the one before the one you replied to).

As for using the argument against Non-Catholics I also fully agree with you. If a Non-Catholic tells you the CC is whatever (I can think of really bad ones) and you are wrong and must come over to their denomination (of which happens the same on CAF under the what I like to call the “truth police” umbrella) then I would tell you to prod that person with a stick and stay as far away as possible.

Ps. I have been following many of your posts and you are in the top 5 on the opposite side of what I was addressing.

What are the things that would be likely to make you consider becoming Catholic?

I was actually not exaggerating by saying 100 things. I made a list 2 years back and it was in that range. I just have a feeling this thread will devolve in something “we see so many times” if I begin.

Regards

 

[guanophore]

Getting to the threads initial question that would be one of the 100 things prohibiting me from becoming Catholic. The "arrogance and triumphalism " approach of many posters on CAF.

I hope you don’t let the unchristlike attitude of certain persons interfere. Although it is ideal that all those who call upon His name would also reflect the fruit of His Spirit, we are all people in process. Perhaps the humility you can role model will be a good influence?

 

[guanophore]

Firstly, the idea that Mary needed to be clean and free from sin as she carried Him in her womb, is an idea foreign to the apostolic circle.

If one can see the comparisons Luke makes between Mary and the Ark of the covenant, and the reader understands how the Ark was carried and regarded, I think it makes more sense. You are very strong on these typologies from the OT.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/mary-the-ark-of-the-new-covenant-0

I don’t know how much closer to the “apostolic circle” than the NT.

When you look for evidence in the writings of Paul, Peter, John and others to this quote, “special case” found in Mary, you cannot find it.

Well, Catholics find it, because we are reading through the lens of the faith handed down to us from the Apostles. YOU may not see it, because you are reading through the lens of modern American Evangelical doctrines.

Paul was clear when he said that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Mary was conscious of her need for a savior.

Can a person who has sinned be blameless and righteous before God? How is a person in the Old Covenant kept blameless and righteous before God?

Mary herself knew she was born “under the law,” as all Jews were. Her sin offering in Jerusalem was common ground to her as a sinner.

These offerings are not about moral sin, but ritual uncleanness. Unless you think it is a sin for a woman to have a period or give birth to a child. Do you honestly not distinguish between the two?

God did not need Mary to be sinless to produce a sinless Son.

I agree, but that is how He chose to do it.

So, yes, Mary was a sinner and remained one, before, during, and after the birth of her first-born Son.

Can you show any evidence from the Scriptures that Mary sinned?

Oral tradition has invented and perpetuated this lie all of these years. It is sad.

I think you are confused about the Sacred Tradition, tgG. It is part of the once for all divine deposit of faith. This revelation is closed at the death of the last Apostle. Nothing can be added or subtracted, just like the New Testament.

These Church fathers made no claim to a sinless Mary, not even a hint.

How many of them have you read?

 

[guanophore]

The progressive “revelation” that goes on today (papacy) is nothing more than false prophecy speaking in the wind to declare what God’s so called on-going message is today. It is laughable if it weren’t so sad.

tgG, your anti-Catholic hostility is leaking out again. If you want to participate in this forum, you are required to respect our faith. You don’t have to agree with it, but it is not appropriate to come here and post detractions, misrepresentations of what we believe, falsehoods, and declarations that our faith is a sad “lie”. There is another evangelical forum where you are free to do this sort of thing.